{"id":1804,"date":"2010-02-05T11:28:35","date_gmt":"2010-02-05T16:28:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=1804"},"modified":"2010-02-05T11:28:35","modified_gmt":"2010-02-05T16:28:35","slug":"too-dumb-to-thrive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=1804","title":{"rendered":"Too dumb to thrive"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2010\/02\/04\/AR2010020403623.html\">Charles Krauthammer <\/a>complains that liberals think people are stupid and treat voters with disdain.&nbsp; This is no doubt true of many of them.&nbsp; Just as it true, on the other hand, of many conservatives, such as Krauthammer.&nbsp; That liberals, and people in general, are stupid seems to be implicit in his opening howler:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;Iam not an ideologue,&quot; protested President Obama at a <a href=\"http:\/\/voices.washingtonpost.com\/44\/2010\/01\/obamas-qa-with-house-republica.html\" target=\"\"><font color=\"#0c4790\">gathering with Republican House members<\/font><\/a> last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Compare his <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/state-of-the-union\" target=\"\"><font color=\"#0c4790\">2010 State of the Union<\/font><\/a> to his <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-srv\/politics\/documents\/obama_address_022409.html\" target=\"\"><font color=\"#0c4790\">first address to Congress<\/font><\/a> a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cbo.gov\/ftpdocs\/108xx\/doc10871\/AppendixA.shtml#1097121\" target=\"\"><font color=\"#0c4790\">now $862 billion<\/font><\/a>) stimulus package,<strong> the largest spending bill in galactic history<\/strong>, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society &#8212; health care, education and energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Because only an idiot would not see that Krauthammer has provided no context for understanding this outrageous claim.&nbsp; You see, dumbass,&nbsp;it isn&#39;t the largest spending bill&#8211;at least if you measure <a href=\"http:\/\/uk.biz.yahoo.com\/13022009\/323\/factbox-u-s-stimulus-plan-ranks-against-other-programs.html\">by percentage of GDP<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Obama stimulus package compares in size as a percentage of GDP to the First New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt but is significantly smaller as a reflection of the government budget at the time.<\/p>\n<p>Roosevelt&#39;s First New Deal in 1933 created the Public Works Administration, at a cost of $3.3 billion. Jason Scott Smith, a professor of history at the University of New Mexico, estimates this was equivalent to 5.9 percent of U.S. GDP at the time.<\/p>\n<p>But compared to the size of the federal budget in that year, it was 1.65 times the amount of federal revenues. <strong>That ratio is more than five times greater than the same measure for Obama&#39;s plan.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Roosevelt followed up with a Second New Deal in 1935 based on the Works Progress Administration, which built airports, bridges and public buildings across the nation. Smith said the initial $4.88 billion appropriation for this program equaled about 6.7 percent of GDP at the time.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div id=\"body_after_content_column\">\n<p>The funny thing about this dismal piece, however, is not its dishonesty (that&#39;s not surprising for Krauthammer), it&#39;s its complete lack of self-awareness.&nbsp; Krauthammer gripes about the unfair characterization of conservatives by liberals by doing the same (to liberals).&nbsp; It&#39;s a kind of op-eddy &quot;I-know-what-you-are. . .&quot;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health-care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a &quot;jobs bill.&quot;<\/p>\n<p>This being a democracy, don&#39;t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don&#39;t they understand Massachusetts?<\/p>\n<p>Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Liberal expressions <\/strong>of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/01\/30\/opinion\/30blow.html\" target=\"\">New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama<\/a> for not understanding the necessity of speaking &quot;in the plain words of plain folks,&quot; because the people are &quot;suspicious of complexity.&quot; Counseled Blow: &quot;The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, &#39;Mr. President, we&#39;re down here.&#39; &quot;<\/p>\n<p>A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are &quot;<a href=\"http:\/\/swampland.blogs.time.com\/2010\/01\/25\/too-dumb-to-thrive\/\" target=\"\">a nation of dodos&quot; that is &quot;too dumb to thrive<\/a>.&quot;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Really?&nbsp; Again, no doubt many liberals think this is true (many conservatives think liberals have a mental disorder, or are stupid, or have funny ethnic properties,&nbsp;or lack manly attributes,&nbsp;or disregard moral virtues, or they have guilt complexes), but Krauthammer is engaging in the same kind of activity&#8211;only worse, because he (1) childishly rips quotes out of context, (2) he picks&nbsp;people who don&#39;t really represent&nbsp;&quot;liberalism&quot; (Joe Klein?) and (3)&nbsp;he ought to know better.&nbsp; He ought to know better because, for&nbsp;instance,&nbsp;too much of the opposition to health reform (&quot;death panels&quot;, &quot;2,000 plus pages!&quot;, &quot;socialism!&quot;, &quot;government take over&quot;) of leading conservative figures&nbsp; was premised on the&nbsp;gullibility of a&nbsp;significant part of the electorate.&nbsp; In certain quarters, such claims get a lot&nbsp;of traction.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>What explains, one might wonder, some people&#39;s belief in evident falsities such as these?&nbsp; Well, one&nbsp;might say they&#39;re dumb (some are extremely dumb).&nbsp; One also might say they&#39;ve been lied to systematically by people such as Krauthammer.&nbsp; One might&nbsp;say, as some&nbsp;have, that there has been a failure to get the&nbsp;message to them.&nbsp; That&#39;s what Obama did.&nbsp; Following directly, here&#39;s Krauthammer on that notion:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself &quot;for not explaining it [health care] more clearly to the American people.&quot; The subject, he noted, was &quot;complex.&quot; The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had <a href=\"http:\/\/projects.washingtonpost.com\/obama-speeches\/search\/issues\/health-care\/\" target=\"\"><font color=\"#0c4790\">devoted 29 speeches<\/font><\/a>. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>This objection is a variation of the argumentum ad paginarum numerum (argument against the sheer number of pages).&nbsp; But anyway, Obama&#39;s point is&nbsp;not that he didn&#39;t talk enough about it, it&#39;s that he didn&#39;t speak clearly enough.&nbsp; Those are different.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even Krauthammer should be able to get that.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Charles Krauthammer complains that liberals think people are stupid and treat voters with disdain.&nbsp; This is no doubt true of many of them.&nbsp; Just as it true, on the other hand, of many conservatives, such as Krauthammer.&nbsp; That liberals, and people in general, are stupid seems to be implicit in his opening howler: &quot;Iam not &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=1804\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Too dumb to thrive<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,1,54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-krauthammer","category-general","category-things-that-are-false"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1804\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}